Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    August 01, 2005

    Supreme court rules recording juvenile criminal interrogations can prevent false confessions

    On July 7, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered all custodial interrogations of juveniles in future cases be electronically recorded when feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention. The decision would make any unrecorded interrogations and any written confessions of a juvenile that are not accompanied by recorded interrogations inadmissible as evidence in court.

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 78, No. 8, August 2005

    Legal news & trends

    Supreme court rules recording juvenile criminal interrogations can prevent false confessions

    tapeOn July 7, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered all custodial interrogations of juveniles in future cases be electronically recorded when feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention. The decision would make any unrecorded interrogations and any written confessions of a juvenile that are not accompanied by recorded interrogations inadmissible as evidence in court.

    In the majority opinion, Justice Bradley said the court agrees with the court of appeals in its decision in the same case that "it is time for Wisconsin to tackle the false confession issue" and "take appropriate action so that the youth of our state are protected from confessing to crimes they did not commit." In the instant case, State v. Jerrell C. J., the court threw out the written confession of a juvenile who claimed the confession was involuntary. The decision also reversed a delinquency conviction.

    The adoption of the recording rule was not without controversy. Several justices questioned the court's authority to adopt such a requirement. In his opinion concurring in the result, but dissenting in part, Justice Prosser wrote, "The court should have recommended legislation instead of legislating from the bench. By its action, the court is attempting to dictate the practices of law enforcement agencies under the guise of `superintending' state courts. This is not an appropriate role for the judiciary in our system of government."

    Justice Roggensack also filed a concurring in part/dissenting in part opinion. She agreed with requiring law enforcement to tape record questioning of juveniles whenever possible but refused to join the court's mandate that unless interviews with juveniles are tape recorded, statements made in those interviews will be suppressed at trial. "This court has never before concluded that it had the power to suppress defendants' statements in certain situations merely because it preferred a different law enforcement technique in the procurement of those statements, as it concludes today," Roggensack wrote.

    This is a timely decision in light of the recommendations made by Rep. Mark Gundrum's Avery Task Force, which recently wrapped up its work. Gundrum anticipates introducing legislation this fall that will make taping of felony confessions of adults and juveniles in custody a state policy. While the bill draft has not yet been finalized, it is anticipated that the new requirements will be subject to specific restrictions and limitations.

    Contributing writer Lisa Roys, State Bar of Wisconsin, government relations coordinator. To contact Roys, email lroys@wisbar.org.


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY